160

CHAPTER VI.

Of Justification by Works.

HAD the phrase Justification by works been the mere creation of erroneous and contentious men, we might have passed it by as unworthy of notice; but as it is confessedly the language of an apostle, its import must be learned and adopted as a part of our creed. It has appeared, indeed, so contrary to the doctrine of Paul, that some have concluded the epistle of James, in which this also occurs, could not be inspired. Luther, at one time, rashly called it an epistle of straw. But though it was once reckoned among those that were not universally received, it is now admitted as of unquestionable canonicity. Nothing requires so much caution, discernment, and wisdom as the investigation of the internal evidence of the books of scripture. Alleged contradictions to other books, may be only apparent, nothing more than what may be discovered in the same book, by the same writer, on the same subject, viewed on different sides and placed in various connexions and lights.

When, therefore, the external evidence is sufficient, we should rather suspect our judgment than reject the book. Luther himself afterwards acknowledged the canonicity of the epistle of James, and we proceed

to the consideration of what has been called his doctrine of Justification by works, fully admitting the apostolical authority of the book, and the importance of this view of our theme.

After having proved that we are justified "by faith that it might be by grace," we might claim a right to assume that it is not by works; because Paul says, "if by grace, then no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace: if of works, then not of grace; otherwise, work is no more work." Should it be said, But James's doctrine of Justification by works may disprove the other; we answer, that if we were examining the statements of differing parties, or those of a fallible, inconsistent man, this might be truth; but we are receiving the testimony of the same records, and these the inspiration of the infallible Spirit of truth, who cannot contradict himself. If, then, we have proved Justification by faith, without works, Justification in the same sense by works must be false; for contradictions cannot both be true. In this case, however, both are claimed to be from the Spirit of truth. Should we be told, that James's doctrine of Justification by works may as well be assumed to be the truth, as Paul's doctrine of Justification by faith without works; we reply, that Paul has unquestionably treated the subject most fully; while James gives but a passing glance; so that we may with propriety regard the former as the teacher of this doctrine by emphasis. The introduction of the subject into the epistle of James is so incidental, and so brief, that no candid student will say we ought to

Y

expound Paul, by James, rather than James, by Paul. Yet we must not contradict either apostle.

A reconciling principle of interpretation must then be sought, that we may contradict neither, but give full effect to both. Where shall we find it? Rome says, in this principle; that when Paul affirms we are justified by faith, James shows this does not mean by faith only, but by faith and works united. He must be very easily satisfied with any suffrages brought in behalf of his own opinion, who does not see that to this there must be an insuperable objection. Even if Paul had made no mention of works, we could scarcely suppose that such a modification of the doctrine of Justification by faith, so largely unfolded and placed in all possible lights, could be admitted, in consequence of a few words by another who was treating on a different theme.

Paul, however, has expressly, repeatedly, and vehemently excluded works, declaring, again and again, that it is by faith, without works. To say, then, that we are justified by faith and works united, is to contradict Paul, that we may not contradict James. To affirm that Paul meant to teach this, is to say we may conclude his meaning to be diametrically contrary to his own words, which is but to represent him as the most incompetent of all teachers. That the persons who resort to this solution do not believe it true, may be seen by their careful avoidance of the Pauline mode of teaching, which is that of repeated exclusion of works from any share in our Justifica

tion, and that of contrasting works and grace, to show that the one excludes the other.

Aware of this, the writer we oppose resorts to another distinction; saying, that "Paul excludes works of law, but not the works of the gospel;" or, works done in a state of nature, but not those done in a state of grace. This cannot be the reconciling principle which we are compelled to seek; for it leaves the difficulty where we found it; since Paul opposes works to grace, and this unites works with grace. Paul has excluded works altogether, though it would have been easy for him to distinguish between one kind of works and another, which the practice of our opponents seems to say he ought to have done. He declares again and again, in the most marked and absolute manner, that we are "justified by faith, without works," never excepting the works of the gospel.

When the apostle says, we are justified by faith without works of law, he omits the article, which might be supposed to restrict it to the Jewish law, and leaves us to conclude that all works of law are excluded. But as those of the Gospel must be works of obedience to the evangelical law, these are excluded. Rom. iii. 20. Διότι ἐξ ἔργων νόμου οὐ δικαιωθήσεται πᾶσα σὰρξ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ· διὰ γὰρ νόμου ἐπίγνωσις ἁμαρτίας.

That this is true, may be seen by the kind of persons with whom he argued in the epistle to the Galatians. They were neither Jewish nor heathen rejecters of the Gospel, but professed Christians, who came down from the church at Jerusalem, and could not be supposed to teach Justification by works of

law done without the grace of Christ. In opposition to them, the apostle adopts the most indiscriminate rejection of works, declaring that if they sought to be justified "as it were by works of law, Christ should profit them nothing." They were told that they who were justified by works of law had fallen from grace, according to the celebrated passage, that "if Justification is of works it is no more of grace, and if righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain." Rome would reply: No; Christ died for this very purpose, to make our works available for Justification.

Where, then, it may be asked, is the reconciling principle? We answer, Here it is. The two apostles, Paul and James, speak of two different things. To this our opponents cannot object; for though we have proved, that after admitting Justification to be a "declaration" of righteousness, Mr. Newman denies this again, and introduces a thing of another kind, which is not a declaration of righteousness; yet we have shown that there may be various species of this genus -declaration of righteousness-with their specific differences, which go to make up the definition of the thing intended by the sacred writer. As, therefore, there may be a declaration of righteousness in common conversation, in a court of law, by an advocate, or by the judge on the bench, so there may be a declaring a man righteous before the church, or the world. It is this last of which James speaks, while Paul treats of that declaration of righteousness which is made by God the Judge, when he justifies